SUKHVINDER SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1061 · Decided: 12-05-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SUKHVINDER SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
MAY 12, 1994 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302 read with Section 149/ 120B-Cir-
cumstantial evidence connecting the appellants with the criminal conspiracy 
to commit murder-Whether proved beyond reasonable doubt-Conviction 
A 
B 
and sentence-Validity of 
C 
Tmorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 : Section 
3-conviction and sentence cannot be sustained in the absence of any 
allegations and ingredient of the section being established in the case. 
Evidence Act, 1872: Section 27---l'rovision not to be made use of to D 
re-discover the discovered fact. 
Section 73-Recourse to be had only by the Court holding enquiry 
under the Code of Criminal Procedure or fhe Court trying the accused person 
by directing the accused person to give his specimen handwriting for enabling E 
it to compare the same. 
Words & Phrases : Any person present in the Court'-Meaning of in the 
context of s. 73 of Evidence Act, 1872 : 
On the basis of a complaint lodged by one 'R' that some unknown F 
persons had abducted his son with intent to get some ransom and that the 
abductors bad threatened to kill his son, a case was registered under 
Section 364/149 IPC. After the investigation all the five accused were 
prosecuted for the murder of R's son. Subsequently, on the basis of the 
disclosure statements made by three accused persons to the effect that they G 
had kidnapped the deceased and later on strangulated him, put him in a 
gunny hag and concealed the dead body in the house of one of the accused, 
the offence was converted to one under Section 302/149 !PC ~ad with 
Section 120 B !PC and Section 3 of TADA Act. The Designated Court, held 
that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond the 
possibility of doubt and convicted and sentence the appellants for offences H 
1061 
1062 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
under section 302 read with Section 149/120B IPC read with Section 3 or 
TADA Act. 
B 
c 
In the appeal before this Court, it was contended that none or the 
five circumstances relied upon by the prosecution had been established in 
the case and that even otherwise all the alleged circumstances could not 
be said to be not compatible with the innocence of the accused and 
consistent only with the hypothesis or their guilt. 
On behalf of the respondent-State, it was contended that the cir-
cumstances relied upon by the prosecution were consistent only with the 
hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants and that each of the circumstances 
had been positively established by the pr Jsecntion and all the circumstan-
ces taken together unmistakably established that the appellants and 
appellants alone had committed the crime; that since the appellants had 
not raised any objection at the time when their specimen writings were 
D taken, they could not be heard at this stage to complain about it; that the 
recovery of the dead body from the house of one of the accused on the 
disclosure statements made by some of the accused connected all the 
appellants with the crime; and the law did not bar more than one dis-
closure statement to be made leading to one and the same discovery and 
therefore the disclosure statements did not suffer from any infirmity 
E 
whatsoever. 
Party allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The conviction recorded by the Designated Court under 
F 
Section 3 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (hel'Pin 
after TADA) Act is wholly unjustified. A bare perusal of Section 3 of TADA 
would reveal that none or the ingredients or that section have been alleged 
and established in this case. None of the prosecution witnesses, not even 
the investigating officer, implicated any or the appellants for committing 
G an .offence under Section 3 of TADA and the prosecution led no evidence 
whatsoever to bring the charge under the section. Merely because the 
I 
investigating agency had charge sheeted the appellants for an, offence 
under sectiol! 3 of TADA, it did not mean that the Designated Court had 
to act mechanically and not even exan1ine whether or not from the evidence 
led by the prosecution, an offence under Section 3 of TADA had been made 
H before recording conviction under the said provision. [1071-C-F] 
SUKHVINDER v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
1063 
__._ 
_ 2. The circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution to A 
connect the parents of the first appellant with

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.